James105

How would the Navy even know this without actually giving it a go? I've met many people over the years that suck the air through their teeth shaking their heads when given a task they don't particularly want to do saying it is not possible, but miraculously when told to do it anyway it gets done. Anyway current totals since Labour took office: 1185 illegals successfully crossed. 4 dead trying to cross. Wonder when Labour are going to start work on this.

Trans women don't want their own category, they want to compete against and be treated like actual women. To suggest that they have their own category is to see them as not women and would probably get you arrested for some kind of hate crime if you were in Scotland.

Can't disagree with the Russians here. The legacy media have been stating that Trump is literally Hitler reincarnated for years now and it is not overly surprising if some low IQ recipient of this nonsense decided it was his moral obligation to take out "the next Hitler". Thing is if the democrats have to stop calling him Hitler, they would have to offer the public some other reason to vote for Biden as all they really have just now is "yes he is senile and should be in a nursing home but at least he isn't Hitler".

Southgate has now resigned. England's chances of winning the world cup in 2 years time have just increased exponentially.

The EU wasn't the EU then, it was a trading block which is what the UK joined when it asked the people in a referendum in 1975. Very different to what it became following several treaties which, unfortunately, did not get the consent of the people ultimately leading to the result in 2016.

So did the KKK. Another narrative that they have somehow twisted over the years to paint as a product of the right. The amount of death caused by the hands of the left is incredible and yet they still think they are the good guys.

Not sure if you are aware, but Trump was president and had power from 2016 to 2020. I don't recall him starting any new wars or persecuting any American citizens during his time in power. Since then he has not been in power and whilst he can for sure be accused of being a sore loser, he left the office and since then someone else has been in charge. This "Hitler" narrative makes absolutely zero logical sense to anyone with even half a brain and just makes the left sound even more dimwitted than they usually do.

No, where did I imply that? I said Labour implemented it in 2009 which is just a simple fact as they were in government at the time. You stated a supreme court is required for a functioning democracy, but the UK has only had one from 2009. Are you implying the UK's democracy was not functional before 2009? Without a "supreme court" the UK was able to pass legislation such as the Slavery Abolition Act which would be quite a feat for a non functioning democracy no? Yes, as I said it was successful - we agree on something then. How many people have died making the crossing since they successfully stopped the boats since that is what we are talking about here? I'd guess none, but I could be wrong on that. So then legislation can be used to deal with that, but visa overstayers do not get free hotels so it is a bit cheaper and less people die when entering the country by legal or fraudulent means. Example legislation can be to disproportionately fine employers for employing illegals so they don't take the risk of trying to save money by using cheap illegal labour. Tony Blair wants his puppet Keir Starmer to implement Digital Id cards so no doubt that would also help mitigate the issue when Labour implements them. So in summary, you agree that a deterrent would stop the boats.

It's not surprising there is little evidence based support (for Rwanda specifically) as that would require implementing the policy to gather the evidence. The supreme court was invented by Labour in 2009 and the UK seemed to have a (better) functioning democracy before then (some would say the mother of all parliamentary democracies even), so that argument doesn't really work. There is however evidence to support that if an effective deterrent is put in place, then it stops people making the crossings. Australia have proven this. The home office suffer from the same short term thinking ability as most people. You yourself seem to think that if the policy was implemented then the number of illegal migrants would not change and it would therefore cost more than putting up migrants in hotels, but neglect to factor in that a working deterrent would remove the pull factor that brings the migrants in. It seems fairly obvious to me that if the migrants currently paying people smugglers thousands of pounds to risk their lives on a dangerous crossing, would not do so if they knew with some certainty that they would be flown directly to Rwanda the moment they land at dover.

You do realize that when someone says they are going to "fight" for something that does not necessarily mean that they are going to use violence... right? I take it in your very literal world people do not use metaphors and people "ask nicely for social justice" rather than "fighting for social justice"?

I think you have missed the point of the scheme. It was a "deterrent". In a parallel universe somewhere, where the democratically elected government was actually allowed to implement its policies, then migrants arriving illegally to the UK are transported directly to the airport on a flight to Rwanda. For the first few months this was indeed expensive (in the parallel universe) but once word had spread that anyone arriving by small boat was not allowed to remain in the UK and were immediately sent to Rwanda then the migrants decided that spending £5-10K on a risky journey across the channel was not worth the effort and stopped coming. So despite the initial exorbitant cost it became cheaper over time than not having a deterrent.

I think Trump has a pretty good chance of winning now.

He is apparently a member of the rather ironically named antifa. Probably about time they are proscribed as the domestic terrorists they are.

I don't get it. Why would they be disqualified? Why is the "national mens teams of Europe" in bold here? Which continent do you think England is in if you do not think it is in Europe?

What are they doing to deter illegal migration? 4 people lost their lives yesterday. What are Labour going to do to prevent this happening again? The Tories are yesterdays news and it's time for you to move on as there is a new government now. There is no point to the constant bleating about how it is the Tories fault as they can do nothing to fix it now. Labour can... if they have the will to do so.

Climate change?

Yes, if you take it out of the context it was made in it would appear to not be relevant. The context is that Labour are processing 100,000 asylum claims, and I'd be very surprised if 100,000 were not accepted either first time, or on the first or second appeals (using the overly generous tax payer funded legal aid scheme), and with the help of useful idiots in the UK who think they are doing something nice by helping those who come from vastly different cultures (who often have zero respect for women's rights) stay in a liberal country like the UK. The BBC are biased, and using a BBC article highlights the extent of the problem if even they are reporting on it. Agreed. This happened under the Tories who, by prior reputation at least, were considered tough on immigration. Labour have always been soft on this so people are rightly concerned that this problem is going to get a lot worse and by the looks of things already, it will.

Sigh. It's a BBC article of course they are not going to go into detail as it doesn't suit their narrative. Here is confirmation from a minister who performed 500 baptisms for migrants as he thought he was being nice, but will not have to deal with the consequences when one of these recent converts throws acid over a womans face, as one such "converted" migrant did. "Pastor Rees said he wanted to help immigrants in need, adding: 'We prayed that God would send us asylum seekers and lo and behold the Home Office opened up an office right next to the church." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13069405/pastor-baptised-asylum-sea-church-Christianity-conversions-bogus.html Or this example: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/abdul-ezedi-clapham-acid-attack-christianity-conversion-sex-assault-b1147845.html "Acid attacker who stayed in UK thanks to Christianity conversion was 'escorted' at church due to sex assault conviction" Like I said, I don't understand how so many people can be so naive. Do you often fall for those emails offering you lots of money to help out a Nigerian prince as well?

It is ridiculously easy to game the system as once the first appeal is rejected they will either pretend to change religion or pretend they are gay to get it approved. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68543879 I don't understand how so many people can be so naive about this.

You clearly haven't thought this through. The law of a country is what the elected government of that country defines it to be. One of those laws is that it is illegal to enter the country via this route. Why is the UK not allowed to enforce this law?

Yes, I would (if I had the power of course). Deterrents are the answer. If you take away all the benefits and make it very, very clear that any migrants who manage to arrive illegally would be refused asylum on the basis they committed a crime then this would act as a deterrent. Another deterrent would be to do what Australia did. This is proven to work. Deterrents are the only way to stop the boats and is the way to "smash the gangs" as it would take away their business model. Those people would not have risked their lives if there was no benefit to making that journey. The Tories might have had a majority of Conservative MPs but they didn't have a majority that were actually conservative, hence the reason that Labour were able (along with their like minded non-conservative conservative MPs) to put a stop to any "conservative" policies. I detest Labour and Conservative in equal measure as they are both signed up to the globalist agenda, which is why neither of them have any desire to stop the small boat crossings as it would make them look bad when they go to Davos.

Labour consistently voted against Tory plans to toughen up the legislation so one would presume that after spending 14 years in opposition they had plenty of time to come up with a solution to this so no, I do not think this is unreasonable. I personally would have this resolved in about 48 hours using the proven to work strategy used by Australia so I think a week is quite generous really. They spent 14 years in opposition complaining seemingly without spending any time coming up with any workable solution so the blood is on their hands now.

4 more people have died trying to get to the UK. https://news.sky.com/story/four-people-die-during-migrant-crossing-attempt-in-english-channel-13176203 To be expected I suppose when the only deterrent (such as it was) is taken away with nothing to replace it. Not going very well this new Labour government is it?

Russia are no different to the west in this regard. They get their propaganda, we get ours, and everyone thinks they are the good guys as that is what the propaganda tells them.

Sure, here you go: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Letter-to-PM-09022020-Nadia-Whittome.pdf The only concerns expressed are for the criminals and not for the potential safety or security concerns of the British people. These were people already convicted of crimes that resulted in imprisonment of more than 12 months so they had their fair trial before they were imprisoned.